Slashdot Mirror
FCC Smooths the Path For Airlines' In-Flight Internet
The Washington Post reports on a development that may push Internet access on commercial aircraft from a pleasant luxury (but missing on most U.S. domestic flights) to commonplace. Writes the Post:
"The Federal Communications Commission on Friday approved an application process for airlines to obtain broadband Internet licenses aboard their planes. Previously, airlines were granted permission on an ad hoc basis. Airlines need the FCC’s permission to tap into satellite airwaves while in flight that enable passengers to access the Internet. They also need permission from the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees the safety of inflight Internet systems." I hope that on-board Internet not only becomes the default, but that free advertising-backed access does, too; especially for short flights, the "24-hour pass" paid access I've seen on United and Delta is tempting, but too pricey.
Think it is likely to remain too pricey for now. Too many price-insensitive business travelers willing to pay *any* price with the corporate credit card. Maybe the airlines can make it up on volume at a lower price point or figure out how to tier it properly, but seems like a good deal they have going now.
Please, for the love of God, Xenu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, no, not in-flight internet that screws with the stream and inserts its own ads into it, or intercepts random http requests and redirects them to interstitial ads. Taco Bell in South Florida tried that a few months ago, and it broke SO FUCKING MANY Android apps it isn't funny (because the access point's stupid software couldn't tell the difference between a http request for a web page, and a http request made to some web service whose client app is just going to crash and burn if it gets a 302 redirect in a context where the real app would never, ever return one).
GoGo uses cellular service, not sat links. The whole thing about using your cell phone on an aircraft is utter bullshit and has been since day one.
Heres an map old map of some of their towers.
http://www.gadling.com/2009/12/07/aircell-headquarters-chicago-internet/
Analog cell phones worked just fine on aircraft. Digital doesn't have the power to do it at 35k feet, of course, you also have a battery that'll last a couple days instead of just one with digital but thats another argument and that problem can be addresses as well.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I don't really need internet access on a flight, but when I'm on a 3 hour flight and I am running so many applications on my laptop that my battery is only good for 2 hours, I would really love to have an outlet to plug in and keep my battery charged. Unfortunately most of the planes I've been on in the past 7-10 years have been of the regional jet variety which generally don't have AC outlets for anyone.
As much as I generally am rather fond of the EmbraerJets, I am rather annoyed that they never give me anywhere to plug in my laptop, it would well offset my frustration over the inability to stand up in the aisle.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
BS. It hasn't been 'expensive' for a few years. See my previous post. Its no more expensive to do it on an airplane than it is to do it on a cell phone. In fact, ITS EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
WiFi on Southwest is only $5 per day right now, which is less than gogo charges for WiFi in the airport!
Seriously, it's obviously been decided that it's as safe to use wifi inflight as it is around coffee machines and baristas, so why make an application process? Or does Starbucks has to apply now? Oh, wait, I missed that part about the FCC. Sorry I raised the question.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Aircraft will be using something like HughesNet. They might have to throttle the onboard WiFi speeds to keep everyone from streaming video simultaneously. But for web surfing, e-mail, some gaming (latency might be an issue), etc. it will be just fine. And for reasonable* prices.
* Nothing like millions of dollars per plane per year.
Have gnu, will travel.
WiFi on Southwest is only $5 per day right now, which is less than gogo charges for WiFi in the airport!
And in my experience, it's HORRIBLY slow. Last time I went to Texas, I noticed the return AUS->BNA flight had it and figured "why not?" Web pages took forever to load and would frequently time out, the onboard hosted content wasn't exactly snappy, and even AIM and IRC had trouble keeping a connection.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Assuming, of course, that they don't get FAP'ed within 12 minutes of takeoff, and end up with an entire plane sharing the equivalent of dialup 9600 baud.
Yes, it is slow. When I have used it, it gave me slightly better than dial-up speeds and, on occasion, I would lose connectivity for a few minutes. Basically, good enough for email and light surfing. I also downloaded a few PDFs.
On the other hand, I am sitting 7 miles in the air, moving at several hundred miles an hour and able to access the Internet! Sure, it isn't a great connection, but I'm 7 miles in the air - so I think it's pretty sweet.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
The FAA, they always seem to be on that leading edge of change.
If there is ever a Pirate Party revolution, it will be one of the first things outlawed, and one of the very few with the death penalty.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
This can't be an issue for most, and going by all the press over the last year this isn't the problem that most people are concerned with.
http://interserver.net/
Hopefully homeland security does not weigh in, some terrorist could communicate with onboard agents of nefarious intent.
Even terrorists need to be entertained, I suppose.
But seriously, though, does it really hurt so much to unplug from the internet for a while (and yes, I am used to long-haul flights, with all-too-common trips between the UK and Australia) and catch up on sleep, listen to music or read a book?
It is nice to have the option of checking the results of a hockey game during a long flight, but in general I agree; having to live without an internet connection for several hours is not a hardship. It is not hard to download a movie or two the day before flying, and anyone who is is critical to their company that the company cannot function if they are out of contact for a few hours needs to be replaced. Critical failure points like that are too dangerous to keep around.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Obligatory Louis C K: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aba_1332656862
(skip to 2:00 for the relevant part...)
No sig today...
Think of it now. We all know how much WiFi sucks when it's overused. That's what advertising-supported on-board Internet will be like. It will be slow (the bandwidth to the ground is single-digit megabits per second, so divide that by 50 to 300 passengers - and some passengers will have multiple devices).
On the other hand, charge a a few bucks for it and only the people who really want it will pay for it. Yes, some will be business users, but I already think the pay-per-day prices aren't all that bad. If I'm bored, especially on a a long flight, I'll happily pay ten or twenty bucks to go online and kill some time. If the fun or utility of the Internet isn't high enough, I'll do something else that doesn't cost me anything, just like I do now.
If it's free I fear that there will be dozens of people on a plane trying to watch streaming video or listen to streaming audio, or running torrents t get content. The layperson just doesn't understand how bandwidth works. They have tens of megabits at home and they expect they'll have it everywhere, but they can't and they won't. Every user will struggle to get dialup speeds if the now-precious resource is just given away for free.
As the CIA has already nicely cleared the issue for travelers, if something is done at an aircraft, is is not really a concern of any jurisdiction. Please enjoy the total freedom of an airborne wifi network, semi-responsively.
The increased radiation from being at 35k feet is far far worse than wifi, or even an X-ray or two.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager